Pixiq

I’ve been wondering about those dashcams. I figured one way or another a way was found to make it legal to use them despite the wiretapping laws, but is that actually the case? What if every cop in those particular states is violating the law every time they pull someone over? If so, maybe it’s time to start enforcing it a little less selectively?

It is actually quite a rethorical question as the laws in question has no bearing on videotaping a public servant like a police officer in public, while discharging his duties.

In Massachusetts you can video someone without consent, but you can’t record audio. So if the dash cam didn’t have sound it would be legal, just as it is legal for anyone to take non consensual video without sound. I think this law was originally meant to prevent phone tapping by non law enforcement people. I doubt it was intended to thwart people recording public events such as cops arresting people in the street, but unfortunately it has been interpreted that way. This law needs to be revised, but I doubt that will happen.

Maryland actually has it specifically written into law that police officers are allowed to video record us.

Why should this blow my socks off? Was I supposed to think ALL cops are bad?

“Was I supposed to think ALL cops are bad?”

John,

That’s typically the default position of many of the readers of this site.

Of course all cops aren’t bad.

A few are criminally corrupt; most of the rest are accessories after the fact.

JL

Any time a cop blocks a camera ” for his buddies safety ” while a guy is being beaten into a coma behind him, or in a jail stepping over a handcuffed fellow who’s face has just been slammed into a wall for no reason, it’s called guilty by negligence, by not stopping the violence you are just as much wrong as the one doing the beating.

The idea that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in public is a fallacy of logic, as well as a bastardization of law.

@JL

Not all cops are bad.

A very few are real problems, but the utter failure of the system to deal with them causes the issue to fester.

@Joel

Not guilty by negligence. Standing silently as you watch someone arrested for a none crime makes you complicit in the action however.

That’s typically the default position of many of the readers of this site.

That is because many of the “good cops” protect that bad cops by not exposing them for being bad cops. This allows the bad cops to continue being bad cops. Ultimately is no different than a cop allowing criminals to engage in criminal activity and do nothing to stop them. This renders the “good cops” bad cops, IMO.
Steve Verdon recently posted..Tweet of the Day

You gotta wonder cops keep arresting people for filming them. Has anyone actually been
*convicted* on this crap?
What are they hiding or
protecting? This Graber case, if the ACLU
wins, will set an important precedent.
Citizens have a right to record you.
Case closed.
Move on to the next Abuse of Power.

The scary part is that precedent needs to be set. I felt this article was very well written and does a great job of outlining exactly why the rights of citizens to record officers on duty is so important. People should not only be able to photograph officers on duty in public places, but feel comfortable doing so, without fear of being harassed.

“I’ve got the gun, the badge, the uniform and the police car with the big insignia on the door and the lights on the the roof. I AM THE LAW HERE!!”

Thanks for this/his post on this subject. Being a regular reader and having just watched the Frontline special about NOPD during Katrina makes me hate cops. But then this comes along and changes my feelings. Bullethead sounds like any average person I know talking how the Police abuse their power.

It’s no surprise for me to have cops who’s only motivation is TOTAL control forget anything (including the constitution or any law) that gets in their way.

But I’m just so angry that cops are so secretive and not a part of the community AT ALL! They always say their “serving” the community but who’s community? Not mine. Why is nothing open to the public? Why can’t we go ask questions and not have to be afraid?Why do they break the law and then hypocritically arrest those that do?

Anyway, it’s good to see someone on the “inside” taking a risk for us and helping to change the mentality of cops attitude.

They will only change if it is accepted by the other cops. The last thing a cop will do is stand alone against other cops no matter how right they are. They are the perfect example of “fear of exclusion”.

Until departments start to put limits on their cops (why would you limit your own power?) nothing will change.
renegademag recently posted..Club Crooks

renegademag, the departments won’t limit police power, either. Police departments are often run by the city’s council, or the people who run the police department are appointed by the council.

The city council is about as local a government as you can get – if you don’t like the way cops are behaving in your city, kick out the bums on the city council, then kick out the uniformed thugs.

YOU are the power behind the change. Do something about it.

This man needs to be put in charge of officer training in every precinct in the nation. Spot on!
Joshua Saint Jacque recently posted..Sunset in the Pacific Northwest

PeaceableGuy: yeah, getting on the city council works for a lot of places in this country, but not really for the metropolitan areas, it’s no easy feat to compete with the people that actually have money to campaign for city council, because around here we KNOW the power they have.

i really should have ran for local offices when i lived in klamath, oregon. Drat!

PeaceableGuy, the idea that I have some power over the cops is naive. I have the power to vote for someone who, IF elected appoints someone (I didn’t elect) to be a CEO of the Police. THAT’S my power? Hoping someone is elected, then hoping they appoint someone who will fire most of the cops? Come on.

Okay, so I’m pretty sure that as you say

“The city council is about as local a government as you can get – if you don’t like the way cops are behaving in your city, kick out the bums on the city council, then kick out the uniformed thugs.”

From what dimension did this come from? When in the HISTORY of the world has that EVER happened?

Yep, never.

The fact is that Cops are unaccountable for anything they do. In this city that I live in, Portland, it’s just too big and too complicated to do what you think is possible. It’s not reality.

Not that it sounds great, it does. But that’s all it is, talk.
renegademag recently posted..Club Crooks

True, the bigger the city, the tougher the changes. If Portland, for example, sucks so much that efforts to save it aren’t worth it, get the heck out of there. If Portland is worth living under a boot for, then stop the whining.

I am here with ABC Nightline and they are videotaping me typing into the keyboard, so this just nothing but a demo

Even in quasi-big cities such as Columbus, OH it would be difficult to do what PeaceableGuy says. And why should I leave? I shouldn’t have to. Cops don’t have the right to defend non-existent laws. But I shouldn’t leave because of it. And it isn’t whining that we’re doing. It’s raising awareness that this isn’t just happening in NYC or Miami or other huge US cities. This is happening all over.
Lisa recently posted..Chihuly Art

@Carlos #21: This is just a practice response, I am lucky no-one was taping me… I’m at work fucking around on this blog instead of working

PS. Obviously it was a story about photographers rights, when does it run?

It’s getting to be the time for the GD pigs to rot in hell for what they’ve done to this country.

Yes. Let’s blame the police for the problems with American society. They caused the collapse of the economy, the rising crime rate, the high cost of Starbucks coffee, the cancellation of Punky Brewster, and the current popularity of Jersey Shore.

Damn them. Damn them to hell.

Have you seen Punky Brewster lately?

http://www.hollywood-celebrity-pictures.com/Soleil-Moon-Frye-2-Picture.htm

No, the cops are just one of many problems, and not nearly as important as JL would believe (himself) to be.

But that doesn’t mean nothing should be done about the problems that are there.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

@JL: I know you were trying to be sarcastic in your post, but there is a kernel of truth in there. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. It is approximately 1 in 99 people are in prison. The rest of the top 10 are all former members of the soviet union. The rest of the western world has between 1 and 3 per 1000 as an incarceration rate. The thriving business of the supermax prisons in remote areas of the country also ensure that those that are incarcerated are kept separated from their family. A little more than a year ago I was listening to a radio interview with a Governor of a western state (Minnesota or Idaho I think) who was complaining that they weren’t getting enough prisoners to make the new supermax they built break even and that they had been promised more by the federal government. Almost 1 in 50 has a criminal record, and if you are a younger mail, that goes up to 1 in 35.

There is a serious climate of fear that politicians are using to feed agendas. If you don’t think that this is in part because of pressure by police chiefs and police unions to increase their budgets and by police unions then you are too naive to wear the uniform. One of the best commentaries I’ve seen lately was a newspaper cartoon showing the bill of rights with all but the 2nd amendment blacked out, titled “The fearful states of america”

Tom,

The police merely enforce laws put in place by the government. There are many cops who disagree with the war on drugs but it is illegal. We (the police) have a duty to enforce the laws put into place by our elected officials. You want to blame someone, blame the officials who make everything illegal. Don’t blame the cop on the beat.

“We do nothing but what we are told.”
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Once again, the laws are passed by elected officials. You don’t like it, vote them out. Or just sit behind a keyboard and act witty.

Just following orders Johnny?

I think you are (deliberately) missing my point. That’s cool though. Keep cheapening your position with ridiculous comparisons.

“And why should I leave? I shouldn’t have to. Cops don’t have the right to defend non-existent laws. But I shouldn’t leave because of it.”

You’re right, you shouldn’t have to leave, and cops have no legal authority to enforce non-laws – in fact, many of the laws on the books are themselves illegal (see Marbury vs Madison, Norton vs Shelby County, etc.). The problem is, in the case of a rogue cop or rogue system enforcing illegal laws, it comes down to the practical matter that the cops outnumber you, outgun you, and have better killin’ stuff than you. Again, this isn’t a moral issue – cops using deadly force for no legal reason are by definition criminals.

So, if someone lives in a big, corrupt city, they can either live a submissive life, work to change the corruption at the local level, or leave. Raising awareness is all fine and good, but being aware that, for example, Las Vegas cops have a propensity for gunning down legally armed citizens should still play a part in your decision-making process before you step outside your Vegas home.

In JL’s defense, the guy and folks like him will be out of a job if they don’t do what their superiors tell them to do, and most of them are ignorant of what constitutes “the law” in the united States. His advice to “vote them out” *is* one of the best solutions to the problem. Other so-called solutions involve kow-towing to every illegal whim of a guy with a badge, taking a stand and getting gunned down by a swarm of cops on an adrenaline high, neither of which are very appealing.

But let’s not confuse “reason” with “excuse.”

If you know what you’re told to do in your job is wrong, does it make it OK to do it even though you know better, just to keep your job? No responsibility there?

And that’s not even getting to actual illegal misconduct.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Well don’t assume that just because you think a certain law is wrong, everyone thinks so. For example, I really don’t like the laws coming out that won’t let you talk on a cellphone while driving. Others feel that seatbelt usage shouldn’t be mandatory. Some think that marijuana is a harmless drug.

So should each officer refuse to enforce these laws if they aren’t behind them 100%? Where does that stop then? What you will end up with is complete inconsistency of enforcement.

I’ve said this before but let me say it again. Just because you personally dislike a law does not mean that law is immoral or unconstitutional. It just means you dislike the law.

There is a world of difference between being asked to commit an illegal act and being obligated to enforce a law that was legally passed by the elected representatives of the public.

If its wrong to enforce laws you don’t agree with then it must be right to arrest for things that aren’t illegal as long as you think it should be.

Good point. I don’t think I should be videotaped in public without my permission so I am gonna start hooking people up for it. I guess since that’s okay, this website can be taken down now.

Nice talking to you guys.

JL, if you don’t arrest them then you are just following orders!

JL, “There is a world of difference between being asked to commit an illegal act and being obligated to enforce a law that was legally passed by the elected representatives of the public.”

From your point of view, it appears that all laws passed by elected representatives are by definition legal and morally enforceable.

This is demonstratably false, and recent examples include the Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago cases where laws passed in those locales by elected representatives were explicitly recognized as being in conflict with the US Constitution and officially struck down.

Other court cases such as Norton vs Shelby County legally recognize the principle that laws in conflict with the US Constitution are void without legal action and that those laws have the same legal status as if those conflicting laws had never been passed in the first place.

Therefore, when a law is in clear conflict with the plain language of the US Constitution and a cop is told to go out and enforce that law, by doing so the cop is acting criminally according to our legal doctine in the united States.

Resisting a criminal act by a cop has also been explicitly recognized as legal by the US supreme court decision John Bad Elk vs US, even to the point of deadly force being successfully used to defend against such criminal action, and even if the cop committing the criminal act subsequently dies.

One reason this matter doesn’t come up very often for most cops is because the victim of enforcement such illegal laws know full well that if they resist the first cop’s criminal actions successfully, they are not likely to live much longer due to the pervasive ignorance of the above, particularly among LEOs.

Well since some laws get struck down by higher courts, it would appear that the system works doesn’t it? Would you just rather the cops make judgment calls based on widely varying moral stances? Some cops are against private gun ownership. Others are avid gun enthusiasts. Who is right? Before you answer, consider there are several ways the 2nd Amendment is interpreted.

I think you would be unhappy if officers started picking and choosing the laws they enforce. Why even have a system of laws if we have no standard enforcement? You are opening a Pandora’s Box there.

What does a court case from 1900 have to with anything? Some states allow folks to resist an unlawful arrest but as I have said before, just because you disagree with a law doesn’t mean it is unlawful.

You may think drug use is a victimless crime and should be legal but woe is you if you try to resist an arrest for it as long as the courts say it us illegal.

JL, the goal of the justice system envisioned by the founders was such that ten guilty people should go free before one innocent person was unjustly convicted. This attitude has been replaced by the “when in doubt, arrest and let the DA sort it out” mentality. So, for all your demeaning words about it, yes, cops *must* make judgement calls, not on widely varying moral stances, but as to whether a law is actually being broken. If they do not, and they enforce an illegal law, then the behavior is by definition criminal.

I’m going to ignore your comment about a US supreme court court case from 1900 being unimportant, as you might as well have asked what a legal document from 1787 as to do with anything. Any law, including state laws prohibiting resisting illegal acts by cops, that are in conflict with the US Constitution (and in this case, US supreme court rulings), are void as if those laws were never passed.

The Second Amendment, for example, is crystal clear: no infringement allowed on the keeping or carrying of arms (pistols, rifles, knives, swords, etc.) whatsoever. This fact is well-supported by writings of all factions of the founders, with many such writings being included in the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers. Ignorance abounds, but, as cops are fond of saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

(The same clarity is also found in many other “complicated” legal scenarios involving rights, such as the First Amendment establishment clause, except that in this case, many of the US supreme court justices blatantly ignored existing court and common law precident and literally created law from the bench… except that the created law, being blatantly in conflict with the US Constitution, is itself void.)

It is not the victim’s place to decide for the potential criminal what actions to take, nor is it the victim’s responsibility. The person taking the action is the responsible party, in this sort of case, that would be you, the cop.

As you point out, woe to the person who decides to exert their rights if the ironically aptly-named criminal justice system is opposed to those same God-given (not Constitution-granted) rights… but this is a practical matter only in that a free person justly ignoring an illegal law is both morally and legally correct, regardless of the fact that the person will be assaulted and caged if discovered, or gunned down by a massive attack if the initial assault by the cops is successfully resisted.

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.” – Mao Tse Tung

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

Hey Johnny did you see the movie “Defiance”?

I will say there is a difference between a cop who will pull someone over to write them a seatbelt ticket and a cop who will use the seatbelt ticket as a pretext to turn over the contents of the car on the side of the road.

Johnny

Judging from Injustice Everywhere officers don’t seem to have a problem picking and choosing what laws they enforce. I’m sure they are capable of more nuanced cognitive functions.

Peaceableguy,

I think you have confused the words “convicted” and “arrested”. Cops arrest people when there is probable cause a crime was committed. The courts determine if they are convicted or not. So the concept of “let the DA sort it out” is actually how our system is supposed to work. Doesn’t everyone on this site constantly state that the police are not supposed to act as the judge and jury? So which is it? Should we also be determining guilt out on the street as well? Once again, folks here show a surprising ignorance of how the criminal justice system functions.

As for the 1900 court case, “Any law, including state laws prohibiting resisting illegal acts by cops, that are in conflict with the US Constitution (and in this case, US supreme court rulings), are void as if those laws were never passed” is incorrect. There are plenty of states that restrict the rights of someone to resist arrest (even for “illegal” reasons) and people get convicted of it all the time. If your interpretation is correct, you would think these laws would be overturned but strangely enough, they are not.

“The Second Amendment, for example, is crystal clear”

Actually it’s not. People have been arguing for decades about what a “well regulated militia” actually means and how broad the right “to keep and bear arms” spans. While you may have a strong personal opinion on it, obviously it is not so clear as you think. Keep in mind that while you may feel strongly about one way, some officers may think that a well regulated militia means some sort of home guard and doesn’t apply to the average citizen. Gee aren’t we glad that cops can’t just pick and choose what laws to enforce or not?

Pinandpuller,

“I will say there is a difference between a cop who will pull someone over to write them a seatbelt ticket and a cop who will use the seatbelt ticket as a pretext to turn over the contents of the car on the side of the road.”

Actually pretext stops have been upheld by the courts repeatedly and are perfectly legal as long as there was an actual traffic violation observed. It is well-established and solid case law.

Pretext stops are legal.

JL said, “Cops arrest people when there is probable cause a crime was committed.”

Thank you for pointing that out (my statement and yours). My statement was too overbroad when I should have kept it narrowed on the job of the cop.

Your statement, however, appears to continue the assumption that any law on the books at any time is valid, legal law. This is not the case as I have repeatedly pointed out. If a cop makes a correct call that there is probable cause a law has been broken and attempts to make an arrest, but the law in question is in direct conflict with the US Constitution (or that State’s constitution, for that matter), then the actions of the cop are illegal and immoral.

I’m not going to go further off-topic and attempt to argue the specifics of the Bill of Rights with you except to state that there is very little room for informed debate on the rights in question, and many of the positions assumed to be legitimate by most people are in fact without merit and argued only from ignorance.

You also make the incorrect assumption that all actions taken by courts today are legal. I repeat, when laws or court actions are in conflict with the US Constitution, those laws are void as if they had never been passed WITHOUT requiring any specific recognition by any other legal establishment or procedure. This principle is in harmony with the supremecy clause of the US Constitution and also has US supreme court recognition of this fact in multiple instances.

This same principle applied in the 1700s, the 1800s, the 1900s, and still applies today.

The only reason the system appears to be working from your perspective, JL, is because people who are aware that their rights are being blatantly abused are also cognizant of the fact that cops have a propensity to use force to coerce compliance regardless of the legality of the demand… and that the criminal justice system rarely seems to hold the cops accountable for such illegal behavior.